Mini 1405: The Simpsons Mafia (Game Over)

[Baby Spice]

Baby Spice

-- you seem to have missed a question I asked:

Since you've read 48 though, do you mind sharing your thoughts on Mhork/guille2015? Or ... well, anybody but D3f3nd3r, really.

Add Rufflig to the list of people I'd like to hear your opinion on.

You're right I did miss it.

Mhork is Mhork. The kind of player that dribbles scum early on, so you have to wait a bit. Null pending further information/posting.

Guille looks a little the same. Though perhaps a little more scummy. Definitive statements that are wrong from lack of checking could be indicative of a scum mind set, or of a lazy poor player. Null leaning scum.

The rufflig is kinda townish at the moment.

[saulres]

He took a player that was under scrutiny and made a lousy question taken out of context to try and make him look scummier. It's one of the most blatant "me too" things I've seen to spread some mud around.

So looking at someone who's under scrutiny and asking clarifying questions is scummy? Good to know. Please, instruct me on how to

properly

scumhunt.

Meanwhile you still haven't answered the question. In 77, in answer to "should I read your 41 as saying you won't be reading over the linked games" your reply is "I don't give a damn about what happened in another game". Then in response to "Do you always assume that somebody pushing an idea you disagree with is scum?" you say "I had just came out of a game where scum...", saying you

do

use what's in other games. What did I take out of context?

At the response you gave? "a universal scum read that does not require reading a specific game which can apply to anyone who makes it and a meta read that requires you to have read a specific game and only applies to a single solitary person in that game" -- I see both of those applying to both the "linked game"

and

to the game you "just came out of". I'm honestly not sure what the difference is. Unless you're claiming that the tell you're using from the game you just came out of is a universal one? Because the way you worded it that's not clear at all.

[Ser Arthur Dayne]

Vote Count 1.04

• guille2015 (4) -
  Plessiez, sword_of_omens, Lord Mhork, havingfitz
  
• D3f3nd3r (3) -
  Baby Spice, qwints, Ztife
  
• Lord Mhork (2) -
  DoubleJD, guille2015
  
• DoubleJD (2) -
  D3f3nd3r, Klick
  
• Plessiez (1) -
  saulres
  
• saulres (1) -
  The Rufflig
  
• havingfitz (0) -
  
  
• Baby Spice (0) -
  
  
• Klick (0) -
  
  
• qwints (0) -
  
  
• sword_of_omens (0) -
  
  
• The Rufflig (0) -
  
  
• Ztife (0) -
  
  
  
  
• Not Voting (0) –

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline is ~11am EST Jan 13

sword_of_omens is V/LA till Jan 2.

[/i][/area]

[guille2015]

By post 47, I knew that my argument was pointless to the point of it being ineffective. So, 47 was an attempt to keep it alive until LordM responded. I wanted to see where the conversation led me concerning Lord and others.

Plessiez

: Pointing out my mistake, I find it as a good sign. Null for this at least. This has been pointed out later but considering that DoubleJD and Fitz RVS was suspect and not including Ruffling in the mix for doing essentially the same thing is note worthy. It's inconsistent of your point of view but I think I understand why you did it like that. I think that Plessiez responded (39) well to Saulres position, on his Buddying with LordM. I really like your post #48. I see what you did with Klick, and I see what you did with me. The more serious part is debatable, but I consider that if you say something is more serious, I can assume that the prior is serious to a lesser degree. Would LordM saying after wards that it was not serious a cop out? Are you going to say something about Ruffling's #77?

Klick

: I am always careful of Klick. Because I always tend to think he is town. Are you going to bitch about the walls again?

Baby Spice

: RVS after plenty of discussion going on, noted. Still, perhaps she hasn't read anything and just wanted to post something to get a start on it. If seen this before and it's null but noteworthy. Ah, so it wasn't RVS. I think you should have been more explicit. I understand what you mean. I'd have to check out Defender more thoroughly.

Ruffling

: I agree with Saulres that Plessiez should have considered Ruffling as ignoring discussion. Noted vote for defender without explanation. I am not satisfied with his excuse later on about this. Ruffling's #77 is ok. I kinda want to see what PL (I cant decide how to write your name in shorthand) thinks of this. So voting for Saulres after prompted. I find this suspicious.

DoubleJD

: Responding to your post 59: Basically my first paragraph here explains it. 47 was a way to respond to Pl and not lift my vote on LordM until he responded. I don't want to go, Ah well my bad, unvote, and have LordM go about uncontested. I agree with your post 84.

Fitz:

" I do not recall ever being in one before." I think Phineas and Ferb had a bastard feel to it, but I don't think it was published as such though.

Lord M

: Post 69: You should know better than any of us if your vote on Klick was serious or not. I assumed it was serious because of your use of the words "More Serious" but that might be a cultural difference between us. Ah man, I kinda wanted you to point out where I was wrong. I guess you simply swept it away since Pless made the argument for you.

Defender

: I don't see consistency in his play regarding the name claiming. For the record, I am not in favor of mass name claiming, but I am in favor of suspicious players claiming.

Sword of Omens

: I remember that he voted for the scum because I was scum in that game. It was my mistake that I didn't read thoroughly, I just remembered that he voted which is what I claimed. So, my bad for not double checking.

Anyone I missed I didn't find prominent to include in this post, and I'm on a tight schedule. Currently, I am considering LordM as Null leaning scum mostly because he did not respond to the discussion like I expected. He just said, "What Plessiez said" and left it at that. I find most suspicious Ruffling and Ztife. Ztife basically for DoubleJD who I have as a town read along with Plessiez. Defender has been on the fence about the name claiming, and that is suspect IMO. Somebody (I think Ruffling) said that it seems like it was testing the waters, and I agree with this. Ruffling's vote for Saulres seems like a stretch, I liked his vote on Defender better.

Vote Ruffling

[guille2015]

I will be VLA until January 10th. I will try to be up to date throughout my vacation as I will be able to check the internet. It really depends on whether my wife is annoyed by it or not.

[Klick]

Klick

: I am always careful of Klick. Because I always tend to think he is town. Are you going to bitch about the walls again?

Yeah. That one was terrible.

[Plessiez]

The rufflig is kinda townish at the moment.

Townish? Really? I'm not seeing that at all. Why do you think so?

Rufflig's justification for the timing of his D3f3nd3r vote still seems off to me. His reactions to other people's questions also seems a bit too defensive -- he seems to favour humourous deflections to straight answers, and his reaction to saulres seems over the top as well. So I've been looking back over his posts. I don't think things add up.

According to Rufflig's 77, he felt after reading D3f3nder's 26 that D3f3nder was "umabigious[ly] ... testing the waters for a mass name claim". He believes, if I'm reading 88 correctly, that this is "a universal scum read". However, Rufflig doesn't vote for D3f3nd3r immediately because the game had yet to "shift out of RVS".

Rufflig

-- if you think somebody has done something unambiguously suspicious, why wait until RVS ends before saying so? Why not try to end RVS yourself by placing a serious vote?

Another problem I have with this is that when Rufflig posted his 41, the game had -- to my eye --

already

clearly shifted out of RVS. Both guille, myself, Klick and Saulres had placed obviously non-random votes. And yet, in this post, Rufflig seems happy to keep his "random" vote on guille and not to vote for somebody he (apparently) had real reasons to suspect. This doesn't seem like the behaviour of somebody who had already become supsicious of D3f3nd3r and was planning to vote for him.

Note also that while Rufflig votes in 53 he doesn't mention "name claiming" as a reason until 56. This is just after sword_of_omens brought name claiming up again in 55. This is either a slightly odd coincidence - sword just happened to talk about name-claiming between Rufflig voting and giving his reason, even though nobody else had talked about it for a while - or suggests that Rufflig only decided his "reason" for voting for D3f3nd3r

after

reading sword's post.

Although Rufflig explains his vote as being based on a "universal scum read" (in 88) he seems to moderate his suspicions very quickly. By 97 he seems to be willing to believe that

none

of the people pushing a mass name-claim are scum: "No, you can't all be scum, but I'll bet at least one of you has a secret agenda". If he really thought pushing a mass claim was so suspicious, why the change of heart?

Rufflig

-- if you weren't voting for saulres, which of {D3f3nd3r, Mhork, Ztife} would you be voting for? Or would you be voting for somebody else entirely?

I haven't looked at guille's 103 in detail yet, though I see he's also voting for Rufflig. Will decide which of them I'd rather leave my vote on later this evening.

[The Rufflig]

So looking at someone who's under scrutiny and asking clarifying questions is scummy? Good to know. Please, instruct me on how to properly scumhunt.

Sure thing. You ask pertinent questions and not just string two sentences together that attempts to make your questionee look scummy. Simply throwing crap at someone who is under scrutiny is not scum hunting. It is simply mud flinging and following the crowd to attempt to look townish instead of scummy. You'll note that you are the only one that is questioning me that falls under this category. The others have actual questions and concerns while you only care to throw mud. This is why you are scum and they are not.

[The Rufflig]

Rufflig -- if you weren't voting for saulres, which of {D3f3nd3r, Mhork, Ztife} would you be voting for? Or would you be voting for somebody else entirely?

Oh, probably d3f3nd3r or sword of omens. Lord Mhork is somewhat town, so I wouldn't be voting for him. Baby Spice and qwints are likely town. DoubleJD and Guille are somewhat town. The rest are mostly null or scummish with the exception of yourself - I keep changing my mind on you.

[saulres]

Give me a break. Search my name and "reconcile", look through my ISO this game -- you'll see that when I don't understand something, I ask about it. And I get answers. Except from you, who accuse me of being scum for asking.

If I were doing "me too" it would have been easy to make up a reason and actually place a vote on you.

Here's another question for you, maybe you'll answer this one. What about Baby Spice's and qwints' postings give you townreads on them?

[qwints]

On the question of a mass name claim - my primary issue is Defender was the initial one to raise the issue but has refused to take a real stance. I think that stands out as particularly scummy.

[The Rufflig]

Here's another question for you, maybe you'll answer this one. What about Baby Spice's and qwints' postings give you townreads on them?

I won't answer that one, no. I generally do not discuss why I think someone is a townie except under certain circumstances such as my town read being in danger of being lynched.

Speaking of reads, have you got any besides Plessiez is scum?

[D3f3nd3r]

I think we probably should, I just want to:
Get support/dissent
Weigh the positives and negatives

@Ruffig: I'm not getting your logic in 11.

[D3f3nd3r]

Post-Edit: Post 111, sorry.

[The Rufflig]

Hmmm. Apparently we have a failure to communicate here. Ok, let's review and double check my assumptions.

1) We are communicating in English: Pass
2) This is not a newbie game: Pass
3) Players understand basic concepts: Fail

Ah, so that's the problem.
I don't discuss the reasons for my town reads unless it suits my purposes.
What part of that confuses you?

[D3f3nd3r]

None of it. I just don't see WHY.

[The Rufflig]

Fine. Let me paint you a couple scenarios.

1) I am a mason and have mod given information about the alignment of 1 or more players and I don't want to disclose.
2) I am the chief of police and days 2 and onward I have inside information on who is town that I don't want to disclose yet nor do I want to be seen making stuff up to justify my reads.
3) I am none of the above, but choose to keep the reasons for my town reads to myself so as not to give myself away when I happen to fall into case #1 or #2.

There are other variants of scenario #1 and #2, but I trust you get the idea, now.

[qwints]

Ruffling, I used to think like you before I was hammered for taking that positioning another game based on the idea that informing everyone is the only real weapon town has.

[saulres]

Speaking of reads, have you got any besides Plessiez is scum?

Not very many, I'm afraid. Too many people are posting far too little to get reads on.

I lean town on DoubleJD for his stand on the name claim, D3f3nd3r clearly has a lyncher wincon because he can't seemingly talk about anything except trying to get people to name claim, and I'd love it if people would start actually answering questions they were asked so we can form reads. If I get a chance I'll go back through the game and identify all of the open ones.

That's partly why I asked for the reasons behind your townreads. I'd love to feel comfortable with someone as town. Your reluctance to discuss them isn't really pro-town from where I'm sitting; scum know who town is so your keeping the information from town doesn't help us. If the reasons for your reads fall under your 1 or 2 you could have just said "gut" or "vibe" or something like that. But if the reason can be determined from something specific someone said or did, then share it (like I did above with DoubleJD).

[Baby Spice]

Townish? Really? I'm not seeing that at all. Why do you think so?

I want to sit on that answer for a while.

[Lord Mhork]

Checking in. Will post later tonight or tomorrow.

[Plessiez]

I think I'm going to add

havingfitz

to my list of town-reads. Gone back on forth on this a bit. His comments (in 90) about D3f3nd3r being a typical day 1 mislynch ring true and mirror my own thinking a bit (in rereading D3f3nd3r's past games for meta, I noticed D3f3nd3r does indeed get mislynched as town a lot). Sure, this could be an attempt to curry favour with D3f3nd3r, but ... the way it's written, I just don't get that impression. Somebody trying that wouldn't place the blame for being mislynched so squarely on D3f3nd3r, in my view. This doesn't feel like an argument fitz would advance as scum (whatever D3f3nd3r's alignment).

I've also got a provisional town-read on

saulres

, and don't think I'll be voting for him today. He's active, asking questions, and pushing at people when he doesn't like the answers he gets. My experience is that this just isn't the way most scum players begin a game. (Actually,

saulres

-- link me to whatever game you consider to be your best scum game, please.)

He's also right that there's something of a contradiction (in 77) between, on the one hand, Rufflig's statement: "My personal feeling is

'I don't give a damn about what happened in another game'

" and, on the other hand, Rufflig's decision to bring up a past game of his as a reason for voting. (He doesn't name the game, but a quick search suggests Rufflig meant Mini 1392). I mean, at the very least, the claim is revealed as hyperbole - Rufflig

does

care about past games, and bases his opinions on them, he just doesn't want to read games he didn't play in. I don't think this contradiction itself is actually very suspicious, though - hypocrisy isn't a scum-tell.

If guille were to flip scum, then obviously I'd reconsider the fact that saulres started voting for me just after I made a case on guille. But in the absence of that sort of information, I don't see much scum-motivation for saulres's play so far.

[The Rufflig]

That's partly why I asked for the reasons behind your townreads. I'd love to feel comfortable with someone as town. Your reluctance to discuss them isn't really pro-town from where I'm sitting; scum know who town is so your keeping the information from town doesn't help us. If the reasons for your reads fall under your 1 or 2 you could have just said "gut" or "vibe" or something like that. But if the reason can be determined from something specific someone said or did, then share it (like I did above with DoubleJD).

Many of my techniques for discovering town don't work if people know what I'm looking for, but I'll give you one of my early techniques. Scum and town have two different motives early game. The scum are trying to keep their lynch options open while the town is trying to narrow things down. This implies that townies are more likely to have town reads than scum -- I do have a couple exceptions to that rule of thumb, but you'll find my townie list falls more or less along that line.

[Plessiez]

I'm definitely not a fan of people not explaining their town-reads. Generally, when I ask somebody for their town reads, it's not simply to learn

who

they think is town, but to learn

why

. It's often hard for the mafia to manufacture genuine-sounding reasons to view other people as town. It's obviously

not

so hard to just name a few people as town and refuse to explain why you think that. And really, if you're worried about giving away secret knowledge about Cop results or Masons or whatever (Rufflig's scenarios 1 and 2), and those people aren't in any danger of being lynched ... well, just don't mention these people as town-reads! People don't need to know that you think certain people are town if you aren't willing to explain why yet.

That said, having read his posts in Mini 1392 I believe Rufflig when he says he makes a policy of not explaining his town reads, so ... meh. Annoying, but probably not worth pushing for now.

If Rufflig is alive later in the game, somebody should come back to these town-reads of his and ask him to explain what he was thinking.

On the other hand, I'm pleased to see (115) that D3f3nd3r doesn't understand the point of not explaining town-reads. I'm less pleased that so far he has made one RVS joke vote and otherwise given no suspects and no town-reads at all (explained or otherwise).

D3f3nd3r

-- we aren't going to mass name-claim. Please stop suggesting that we do - it's a waste of time. Instead, please give us (at least) three town-reads or scum-reads. Explain your thinking.

[saulres]

saulres -- link me to whatever game you consider to be your best scum game, please.

I'd have to give you the only one I won as scum: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=23074

This one was pretty good too, I think, because I think I had people convinced I was town but the role claims gave me away.

The only other scumgame I remember was izak's Worst Roles where it was multiball, I didn't know until late in the game, and the other team took all of us out before any of them flipped.

If you want to contrast my recent towngames I could link you to those as well.

@Mod

: Requesting prods on DoubleJD and havingfitz.